Identity Of Evidence: Orissa High Court Quashes Disciplinary Action After Criminal Court Acquittal

Background Facts

The employee (respondent) was serving as a Constable in the Odisha Police establishment. He became an accused in a criminal case registered under the NDPS Act regarding the illegal transportation of ganja. The departmental proceedings were initiated against him for misconduct. The criminal trial was pending but the Odisha Administrative Tribunal permitted the departmental inquiry to continue but restrained the authorities from passing a final order until the criminal case concluded.

In the criminal trial, the employee proved that he was undergoing official training during the time of offence. The trial court acquitted the employee, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish his involvement.

Despite acquittal, the disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing the employee from service. Aggrieved, the employee filed the petition before the Orissa High Court. The petition was allowed by the single judge who set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the employee with all consequential service and financial benefits.

Aggrieved by the same, the State filed an appeal against the single judge's order.

It was argued by the State that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically nullify disciplinary proceedings. Both operate in distinct fields with different standards of proof. It was further contended that criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is aimed at punishing an offence against society. Whereas departmental proceedings are intended to maintain discipline, integrity, and efficiency in public service.

It was further argued that misconduct under service rules is not automatically extinguished by an acquittal in a criminal trial. It was contended that even an acquittal does not automatically confer a right to reinstatement, particularly in the case of members of disciplined forces, where the standard of conduct expected is much higher.

On the other hand, it was argued by the employee that the foundation of the departmental proceedings collapsed after the criminal court acquitted him. It was submitted that the departmental inquiry and its findings were based on no evidence at all.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that the same set of witnesses gave their testimonies in the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings. It was observed that the witnesses examined by the inquiry officer were the same individuals who had deposed before the trial court. However, in the trial court their evidence was not accepted.

It was further observed that the trial court had recorded that the employee was not even present at the spot, which was the basis on which he was being proceeded departmentally. The employee had proved that he was undergoing official training during the relevant time. It was observed that the Trial court had acquitted the employee, therefore, the departmental proceedings and their conclusion were based on “no evidence”.

It was observed by the Division Bench that the Single Judge had rightly set aside the departmental action. Hence, the single judge order was upheld by the Division Bench. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : State of Odisha & Others v. Bansidhara Bariki

Case No. : W.A. No. 589 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Debaraj Mohanty, AGA

Counsel for the Respondent : Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate